Bush’s Legacy

Truman’s was a difficult, extraordinary, time in
office; Bush’s was worse. Bush leaves office in similar
circumstances, too. Will Bush bounce back like Truman?

President George Bush leaves office on Tuesday, 20 January 2009,
amidst a dismal 34% job-rating. His two terms in office has been a
tumultuous period: the September 11, 2001 (9-11) attacks, his waging
of global war on terrorism, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He leaves
behind all his wars inconclusive, indeed, messy; he could not catch
Osama bin Laden, the 9-11 mastermind. His waging of these wars also
prompted, see critics, the worldwide jump in Islamic extremism and
violence. The U.S. economy is left in doldrums, affecting the global
economy in similar way. The charges of illegal detention of
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and harsh interrogation tactics and
torture of prisoners in violation of international law, plus abuse
of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, further taint his
presidency.

Most observers will undoubtedly view Bush’s presidency
as a dark chapter, a disaster, in U.S. history. Still he leaves
office defending his tenure as he told the nation in farewell
speech: “I have always acted with the best interests of our country
in mind”. He propped up defense of his presidency by touting:
“America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist
attack on our soil”.

In a country like the U.S.—highly conscious
of its defense and security and investing so much resources in it, particularly since the WW II—attacks
like the 9-11 by non-state actors like al-Qaeda would not occur
easily under any President. So the claim that no further attacks
like the 9-11 occurred during Bush’s presidency does not add up.

Bush said he would leave office with a “great sense of
accomplishment”; Vice-President Dick Cheney agreed. He has repeatedly
touted that history will judge his legacy, which he repeated in his
closing press conference, saying: “I don't think you can possibly
get the full breadth of an administration till time has passed”.

I
subscribe to Huntington’s Civilization Clash thesis. Huntington
talks about likely emergence of a multilateral clash between some
eight civilizations. As a researcher of Islamic theology and
history, I see the clash between Islam and the rest would stand out
and overwhelm all others.

Huntington recounted ongoing conflicts
of Islam with their neighbors all over the world; he most accurately
retorted to the deniers of Islam-West conflict that “The relations
between Islam and Christianity, both orthodox and Western, have
often have been stormy. Each has been the other's Other.”

“The
twentieth century conflict between Liberal Democracy and
Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical
phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual
relations between Islam and Christianity”, he added.

Islam’s
conflict with greater humanity is much wider in scope. Historically,
Islam’s relationship has been much more conflictual with the
pre-Islamic peoples of all creed, color and race—Pagans, Jews and
Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Animists—of Arabia,
West Asia, Persia, Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, and India.
Many of these civilizations have completely succumbed to Islam: they
have vanished; estimated 300 hundred million people perished to the
sword of Islam, wielded since its birth in Arabia in the 7th
century.

The civilizational clash is thus not new as far as Islam
is concerned. Islam was born in Arabia as Islamic God Allah’s
master-plan, His politico-military tool, for creating a global
Islamic state by making Muslims His “agent and inheritor of the
earth” [Quran 6:165] and promising to make Islam victorious over all
peoples and places [Quran 8:39]. Since then, Muslims have divided
humanity into two houses, nations, civilizations: Dar al-Islam
(House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). Islam’s mission has
been to turn the non-Muslim Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam through
Jihadi wars to realize Allah’s ultimate goal of creating a global
Islamic state. Islam’s history reflects exactly that.

Muslims have
achieved stunning success in this mission, but it remains
unfinished. The ongoing conflicts of Islam—in Kashmir, Southern
Thailand, Mindanao, Balkan, Chechnya, and parts of Africa—are a part
of Islam’s continued civilizational clash with the rest of humanity.
The Arab Islamic world’s war against Israel, Muslim immigrants’
conflict with the socio-political order of Western societies, the
9-11 attacks and the worldwide violence by numberless Islamist
groups are a part of this age-old civilizational clash, too.

Remarkably, this clash has sustained 14 centuries since Islam’s
founding at immense cost of innocent humanity. Bush’s legacy, for
me, should be judged by whether his administration—in the backdrop
of spectacular 9-11 attacks—understood that the attacks was part of
this age-old civilizational clash of Islam with the rest of
humanity; and whether he took necessary measures to fight it.

His administration probably understood the conflict reasonably well,
but failed to undertake decisive measures. This war of Islam against
the rest of humanity can only be fought by exposing what the clash
is all about. His touting the slogan that ‘Islam is peace’
undermines the fight. His “war on terror” was a necessary component
to neutralize the clash, but insufficient to kill it forever. Only
by exposing Islam’s design—based on its religious
foundations—against the rest of humanity can this age-old menace to
humanity be neutralized forever.

Understandably, the world today
is held hostage by oil-producing Muslim states; this constraint
prevents the taking of necessary actions, namely pointing to where
truly lies the root of this global conflict. Working under this
constraint, the Bush administration could, undoubtedly, do much less
than what is needed to win this battle decisively. Under the
circumstances, another President, Al Gore for example, in all
likelihood, would have done much less.

This is a war that must be
won against immense odd, fighting huge ignorance of the global
population. We have noticed the hypocrisy of Europeans: they
overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for his naïve but goody-goody
gesture toward Islam, whilst a great majority of them feel
uncomfortable with Muslims living amongst them: their attitude
toward Islam is hardening, becoming unfavorable.

In a world, not
ready to take an oil-shock, creating this awareness, this
unfavorable attitude toward Islam, will be crucial—probably the
first step—toward defeating Islam’s age-old war against humanity.
Bush’s war on terror, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—although failed
to achieve short-term objectives—have undoubtedly played a central
role in this vital “awareness creation” about Islam.

An
unconditional conflict against wider humanity, waged by few hundred
impoverished Arabs under Prophet Muhammad’s leadership, has
sustained 14 centuries. And Islam has achieved much: today, Islam
1.4 billion volunteers push Islam’s civilizational clash forward in
one capacity or another. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand the
kind of vitality and resilience, Islam exudes into this battle.

It
is not difficult either to understand the difficultly, the odds,
global non-Muslim humanity faces in this battle with such staggering
army of volunteers, so much of world’s vital resources on Islam’s
side today, whilst its opponents are handicapped by restraints like
international law and human rights etc., for which Islamists have
nothing but contempt.

For a keen observer of Islamic history, who
understands its theological foundations and cares for the immense
sufferings it has caused to humanity, attempt at winning this battle
decisively is much more noble than Bush administration’s lapses in
upholding international laws and human rights of dreaded terrorists,
who are hell-bent on, and take gleeful joy in, causing mass-murder
of innocent men, women and children, inspired by a demented
theological doctrine. Of the reformed, low-risk terrorists released
from Guantanamo, 61 of them have returned to Jihadi trail for
mass-killing of innocent people. Some measure of harsher tactics may
even be essential to tackle these dreaded breed of mass-murderers,
who deem dying in the hands of their perceived enemies most
desirable, a martyrdom, which lands them in paradise.

It is a
battle either side can win from here, but in historical context and
present reality, the balance tilts in Islam's favor unless,
extraordinary measures are being taken. Given the circumstances, the
Bush administration made a reasonable attempt at neutralizing this
dreaded enemy. This battle, lasting 14 centuries, cannot be won
overnight; it will take decades if not centuries; more real,
determined, measures must come. It can be won only by following the
trail of Bush administration’s measures and strengthening the
resolve further. Bush’s message to his successor—that “with the
courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great
nation will never tire, never falter, and never fail"—is probably
the least that will be needed.

Whether Bush’s commendable, but
insufficient, attempts at winning this war leads to sustained
effective measures will determine the fate of this lasting
civilizational clash of global expanse. We have to wait for decades
to see the outcome. Bush is correct: only history can judge his
legacy.

Harry Truman left office in 1953 with a miserable 32%
approval-rating to the relief of most Americans amidst his unpopular
war and gloomy economy, so is Bush’s departure. Yet in a decade,
Truman became rated amongst nation’s top ten presidents. A movie was
made entitled, “Give ’em Hell, Harry!”; Chicago group sang “America
needs you, Harry Truman”.

Truman’s was a difficult, extraordinary,
time in office; Bush’s was worse. Bush leaves office in similar
circumstances, too. Will Bush bounce back like Truman? It all
remains to be seen.

MA Khan is the editor of islam-watch.org
Website and the author of upcoming book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy
of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery.